Thursday, September 29, 2005--Andis Kaulins [9/29/2005 11:58:00 PM] - Home - About - My Book
A Misunderstanding with Scrivener's Error
Scrivener's Error has a less than flattering posting concerning my reference to his previous blog posting in which he originally (September 19, 2005) wrote the following statement concerning the suit by the Author's Guild against Google Print:
"Not only is Google wrong in adopting an opt-out model when the Copyright Act explicity requires opt-in....."
This was a clear comment on the "merits" of the case and not on class certification.
My comment to that was as follows:
"Scrivener's Error points out accurately that the actual copyright to most trade books still resides with the author but then goes forward to make the error in thinking that Google's opt-in or opt-out option has any major relevance for the judicial decision in this case. It does not. The major question is whether Google's scanning of library books for the purposes of listing such books on a search engine is a transformative use - and the answer can only be - yes, it is, depending upon how that material is presented online. The opt-in or opt-out function has merely to do with the time at which a copyright holder gives permission - which is in fact not even required for a transformative use."
Scrivener's Error alleges here (September 29, 2005) that I was replying to the following [later] Scrivener's Error statement in another blog posting by him, which is simply not true:
"The ultimate irony here is the usual mechanism of class remedies: Usually—as in the horribly structured "database settlement" also "brokered" of late by the Author's Guild—everyone who falls into the class definition is bound by the settlement unless they opt out. Given that opt-in/opt-out is precisely what is at issue in Google's program, flowing in the opposite direction, this seems rather silly. It wouldn't have been that hard to both acknowledge reality and make the class definition logically consistent with the cause of action…"
That statement DOES NOT APPEAR AT ALL in the original September 19, 2005 posting by Scrivener's Error that I referred to in my posting but only appears in a subsequent posting on September 22, 2005, a posting to which I in fact refer quite favorably to, later on my blog, by writing as follows:
"See also Scrivener's Error [linking to the September 22, 2005 posting] for a listing of errors in the Author's Guild class action complaint."
The paragraph in my posting cited above referred to the opt-out alternative provided by Google to publishers, which Scrivener's Error specifically mentioned on the merits of the case in his September 19, 2005 posting.
The opt-out that Scrivener's Error thinks I was commenting on - which I was not - was that which involves the opt-out available in class actions, which Scrivener's Error comments upon in his September 22, 2005 posting.
In any case, I think the postings by Scrivener's Error on class action matters are quite good and see no reasons for animosity. This is a misunderstanding relating to the question of the posting that I was referring to. That is all.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/29/2005 11:58:00 PM
A Misunderstanding with Scrivener's Error
Scrivener's Error has a less than flattering posting concerning my reference to his previous blog posting in which he originally (September 19, 2005) wrote the following statement concerning the suit by the Author's Guild against Google Print:
"Not only is Google wrong in adopting an opt-out model when the Copyright Act explicity requires opt-in....."
This was a clear comment on the "merits" of the case and not on class certification.
My comment to that was as follows:
"Scrivener's Error points out accurately that the actual copyright to most trade books still resides with the author but then goes forward to make the error in thinking that Google's opt-in or opt-out option has any major relevance for the judicial decision in this case. It does not. The major question is whether Google's scanning of library books for the purposes of listing such books on a search engine is a transformative use - and the answer can only be - yes, it is, depending upon how that material is presented online. The opt-in or opt-out function has merely to do with the time at which a copyright holder gives permission - which is in fact not even required for a transformative use."
Scrivener's Error alleges here (September 29, 2005) that I was replying to the following [later] Scrivener's Error statement in another blog posting by him, which is simply not true:
"The ultimate irony here is the usual mechanism of class remedies: Usually—as in the horribly structured "database settlement" also "brokered" of late by the Author's Guild—everyone who falls into the class definition is bound by the settlement unless they opt out. Given that opt-in/opt-out is precisely what is at issue in Google's program, flowing in the opposite direction, this seems rather silly. It wouldn't have been that hard to both acknowledge reality and make the class definition logically consistent with the cause of action…"
That statement DOES NOT APPEAR AT ALL in the original September 19, 2005 posting by Scrivener's Error that I referred to in my posting but only appears in a subsequent posting on September 22, 2005, a posting to which I in fact refer quite favorably to, later on my blog, by writing as follows:
"See also Scrivener's Error [linking to the September 22, 2005 posting] for a listing of errors in the Author's Guild class action complaint."
The paragraph in my posting cited above referred to the opt-out alternative provided by Google to publishers, which Scrivener's Error specifically mentioned on the merits of the case in his September 19, 2005 posting.
The opt-out that Scrivener's Error thinks I was commenting on - which I was not - was that which involves the opt-out available in class actions, which Scrivener's Error comments upon in his September 22, 2005 posting.
In any case, I think the postings by Scrivener's Error on class action matters are quite good and see no reasons for animosity. This is a misunderstanding relating to the question of the posting that I was referring to. That is all.
.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 9/29/2005 11:58:00 PM
......Creative Commons License
